Justia Nevada Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was a convicted sex offender on lifetime supervision. When Appellant had been on lifetime supervision for five years, the State Board of Parole Commissioners imposed additional conditions that were not enumerated in Nev. Rev. Stat. 213.1243. The State later filed a complaint charging Appellant with violation of conditions of lifetime supervision and prohibited acts by a sex offender. The jury found Appellant guilty of violating the conditions of his lifetime supervision. On appeal, Appellant argued that section 213.1243 does not delegate authority to the Board to impose additional supervision conditions not enumerated in the statute, and therefore, he did not violate the statute even if he violated the additional conditions imposed by the Board. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the plain language of section 213.1243 does not grant the Board authority to impose additional conditions, and this omission was intentional; and (2) because the Board-imposed conditions were unlawful and any Board violations cannot be separated from any section 213.1243 violations, the case must be remanded for a new trial. View "McNeill v. State" on Justia Law

In making sentencing recommendations to district courts in a Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) the Division of Parole and Probation uses a Probation Success Probability (PSP) form that places the defendant within a range of sentences on a Sentence Recommendation Selection Scale and provides the basis for the PSI’s sentence recommendation. At issue in these two appeals was whether scoring errors in Defendants’ PSPs adversely influenced the Division’s sentencing recommendations in the PSIs. The Supreme Court held (1) in the first case, the scoring error in the PSP resulted in a flawed PSI recommendation, and Defendant’s sentence was prejudiced as a result; and (2) in the second case, Defendant’s sentence was not prejudiced by potential errors. View "Blankenship v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with possession of a controlled substance. At his preliminary hearing, Petitioner moved to suppress evidence he argued was obtained as the result of an unlawful arrest. The State opposed the motion, arguing that the justice court lacked the authority to hear and rule on the motion to suppress. The justice court concluded that it had authority to rule on suppression issues and suppressed the evidence, concluding that the search was unlawful. The court then dismissed the case against Petitioner for lack of probable cause. The district court remanded the case, ruling that Nevada’s justice courts are limited jurisdiction courts without the power to adjudicate suppression issues in the context of a preliminary hearing. Petitioner subsequently filed this petition seeking a writ directing the district court to vacate its order. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that justice courts have express and limited inherent authority to suppress illegally obtained evidence during preliminary hearings. View "Grace v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Father and Mother divorced in 2011. In 2013, the district court ordered Father to pay additional child support for failing to previously pay child support. In 2014, Mother filed a motion to modify custody and enforce the 2013 order. After a hearing, at which Father represented himself, the district court awarded Mother primary physical custody of the child. The district court then held Father in contempt of court for failing to pay child support. The court sentenced Father to a total of eighty days in jail and stayed the contempt sentence on the condition that Father “follow the Orders of the Court.” The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) a contempt order that does not contain a purge clause is criminal in nature, and because the district court’s contempt order did not contain a purge clause, the district court violated Appellant’s constitutional rights by imposing a criminal sentence without providing Appellant with counsel; and (2) the district court abused its discretion by basing its decision to modify custody on Appellant’s failure to comply with a court order and by failing to consider and set forth its findings as to the Nev. Rev. Stat. 125.480(4) factors for determining the child’s best interest. View "Lewis v. Lewis" on Justia Law

Norman Dupree was arrested and incarcerated in county jail. Justin Bros Bail Bonds and International Fidelity Insurance Company (collectively, Justin Bros) posted Dupree’s bond (bond number one). Dupree was later remanded to custody based on a pretrial supervision violation. Bonafide Bail Bonds posted bond (bond number two). Dupree failed to appear for his arraignment but later surrendered himself. Justin Bros posted another bond (bond number three). Dupree failed to appear for the arraignment. The district court entered a judgment of forfeiture for bond number one. Justin Bros filed a motion for reconsideration. While the motion was pending, Dupree surrendered. The district court denied the motion. After Dupree pled guilty and was sentenced, Justin Bros filed a motion to set aside the bond forfeiture judgment or to exonerate bond number one. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court denied mandamus relief, holding (1) because Dupree failed to appear for his arraignments, he breached the agreement to answer the charges specified and to be amenable to the court process; and (2) consequently, the district court was prohibited from exonerating bond number one unless one of Nev. Rev. Stat. 178.509(1)’s enumerated conditions materialized, which did not occur in this case. View "Justin v. Second Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for 15 counts of possession of child pornography. Defendant argued that 14 of his 15 convictions for possessing child pornography must be vacated because NRS 200.730 penalizes possession, and the State proved only "a singular act of digital possession of items seized on the day the police took the computers into police custody." The court held, consistent with case law and the rule of lenity established in its law, that defendant's simultaneous possession at one time and place of 15 images depicting child pornography constituted a single violation of NRS 200.730. Therefore, the State proved one, not 15, violations. The court concluded that defendant's remaining claims are either meritless or harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment of conviction. View "Castaneda v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted in municipal court of failing to stop his vehicle at a stop sign, a misdemeanor offense. At issue on appeal is whether NRS 189.030(1) confers a duty on a municipal court, rather than a misdemeanor appellant, to provide a transcript for a defendant's misdemeanor appeal and whether a district court may dismiss an appeal for an appellant's failure to obtain transcripts from the municipal court. The court held that a misdemeanor appellant is responsible for requesting transcripts and, if not indigent, paying for those transcripts. Furthermore, the court held that the district court has the inherent authority to dismiss a misdemeanor appeal where the appellant fails to prosecute an appeal or comply with the court's orders. Although the district court has that authority, dismissal is an extreme remedy, and therefore, the better practice is to allow the appeal to proceed and to decide the case based upon the documents submitted and any briefs filed. In this case, the district court acted within its jurisdiction and did not exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Accordingly, the court denied the pro se petition for writ of mandamus, writ of prohibition, and writ of certiorari. View "Sparks v. Bare" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of battery with a deadly weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Defendant argued on appeal that the district court erred at sentencing by failing to pronounce the aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment as required by statute. The court concluded that it was error for the district court not to aggregate the sentences in the judgment of conviction but that error does not warrant a new sentencing hearing as it does not affect the sentences imposed for each offense. Because defendant failed to demonstrate that his convictions or sentences are infirm, the court affirmed the conviction. However, the court remanded for the district court to correct the judgment of conviction to include the aggregate minimum and maximum terms of his consecutive sentences as required by NRS 176.035(1). View "Mason v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. Defendant was sentenced to death for felony murder. Defendant's two codefendants were also convicted on the same charges but received life sentences without the possibility of parole. The court previously held in Flanagan v. State that a district court does not abuse its discretion when it allows evidence of the codefendants' sentences. The court reaffirmed its holding in Flanagan, concluding, specifically, that the district court has discretion to admit evidence of a codefendant's sentence in a first-degree murder sentencing hearing. The court further concluded that defendant's challenge to the district court's ruling allowing the State to argue twice during closing arguments at the penalty hearing lacks merit. Defendant's contention that his sentence is excessive also lacks merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence. View "Harte v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of one count of trafficking in a controlled substance. Defendant moved to declare a mistrial and order a new trial due to juror misconduct, arguing that there was a reasonable probability that the verdict was affected by independent experiments conducted by two jurors to test theories of the case advanced at trial. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred by denying Defendant’s motion for a new trial because the independent experiments conducted by the jurors constituted prejudicial misconduct; and (2) the district court committed plain error by failing to provide a jury instruction admonishing jurors against conducting independent research, investigations, and experiments. View "Bowman v. State" on Justia Law